![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Decent into Irrelevancy
Dec. 1st, 2007 07:14 pmWas thinking about the Star Wars prequels, and finally put my finger on what bugged me about them*:
For a trilogy supposedly about the fall of Anakin Skywalker, he ends up being rather irrelevant to the outcome. If Anakin had never come along, what would have changed? Palpatine might have found it a bit harder to take out the Jedi temple, or maybe he'd have kept Dooku** around a little longer. The clone wars might have started a few years early, with the Trade Federation conquest of Naboo as the first battle. Besides that?
Now granted, everyone had a mental image of what the prequels would be like, and perhaps its not fair to critisise the actual films for not living up to our expectations. But I think it's fair to say that most people assumed Anakin's fall to the dark side would be key to the plot of the prequels; that he would betray the Jedi, that through his pride or hatred or arrogance or fear he would make possible the rise of the Empire.
Instead, he's misled by Palpatine just as much as Obi-Wan or Yoda - and, critically, no more so than either. Yes, in the end he turns to the Dark Side - but by the time he takes the name Darth Vader, the Jedi are already all but extinct. Jar-Jar Binks has more responsibility for the rise of the Empire than Vader has! If he'd opposed the newly crowned Emperor, what would have happened? More than likely, he'd have ended up a stain on the pavement, like Mace Windu.
What strikes me as especially peculiar is the 'opera' scene in Revenge of the Sith, where Palpatine all but outright says that Anakin is his creation, or at least a Sith creation, the implication being that he's some sort of secret weapon in Palpatine's machinations. It's a very good scene, well written and acted, but after seeing the whole movie, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. What, exactly, did Anakin bring to the table that Palpatine's earlier aprentices lacked? What, for that matter, did Anakin bring that any random Jedi wouldn't bring if turned to the Dark side? Anakin spends most of the rest of the movie not doing very much at all - the clonetroopers seem to be a bigger factor in the Jedi purges than he is.
I've always felt that one of the best elements of the prequels was the portrayal of Palpatine as the master manipulator, the puppet master playing all sides against each other. The problem though, is that if *everyone* is just a pawn in Palpatine's scheming, no-one is important. The mighty Darth Vader ends up being no more important than Nute Gunray or the Clonetroopers; possibly less. After all, there's plenty of angry, angsty teenagers; there's only one Trade Federation.
* You know, besides Jar-Jar, the dialogue, the hyperactive CGI, R2-D2 flying, Yoda flying, the criminal under-use of Christopher Lee, etc, etc.
** Man, I hate that name. I mean, I get the "Count D_____" as a reference to Lee's most famous role, but couldn't Lucas have come up with a better name starting with D? Dooku makes "Greedo" or "Jar-Jar Binks" look brilliant by comparision.
For a trilogy supposedly about the fall of Anakin Skywalker, he ends up being rather irrelevant to the outcome. If Anakin had never come along, what would have changed? Palpatine might have found it a bit harder to take out the Jedi temple, or maybe he'd have kept Dooku** around a little longer. The clone wars might have started a few years early, with the Trade Federation conquest of Naboo as the first battle. Besides that?
Now granted, everyone had a mental image of what the prequels would be like, and perhaps its not fair to critisise the actual films for not living up to our expectations. But I think it's fair to say that most people assumed Anakin's fall to the dark side would be key to the plot of the prequels; that he would betray the Jedi, that through his pride or hatred or arrogance or fear he would make possible the rise of the Empire.
Instead, he's misled by Palpatine just as much as Obi-Wan or Yoda - and, critically, no more so than either. Yes, in the end he turns to the Dark Side - but by the time he takes the name Darth Vader, the Jedi are already all but extinct. Jar-Jar Binks has more responsibility for the rise of the Empire than Vader has! If he'd opposed the newly crowned Emperor, what would have happened? More than likely, he'd have ended up a stain on the pavement, like Mace Windu.
What strikes me as especially peculiar is the 'opera' scene in Revenge of the Sith, where Palpatine all but outright says that Anakin is his creation, or at least a Sith creation, the implication being that he's some sort of secret weapon in Palpatine's machinations. It's a very good scene, well written and acted, but after seeing the whole movie, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. What, exactly, did Anakin bring to the table that Palpatine's earlier aprentices lacked? What, for that matter, did Anakin bring that any random Jedi wouldn't bring if turned to the Dark side? Anakin spends most of the rest of the movie not doing very much at all - the clonetroopers seem to be a bigger factor in the Jedi purges than he is.
I've always felt that one of the best elements of the prequels was the portrayal of Palpatine as the master manipulator, the puppet master playing all sides against each other. The problem though, is that if *everyone* is just a pawn in Palpatine's scheming, no-one is important. The mighty Darth Vader ends up being no more important than Nute Gunray or the Clonetroopers; possibly less. After all, there's plenty of angry, angsty teenagers; there's only one Trade Federation.
* You know, besides Jar-Jar, the dialogue, the hyperactive CGI, R2-D2 flying, Yoda flying, the criminal under-use of Christopher Lee, etc, etc.
** Man, I hate that name. I mean, I get the "Count D_____" as a reference to Lee's most famous role, but couldn't Lucas have come up with a better name starting with D? Dooku makes "Greedo" or "Jar-Jar Binks" look brilliant by comparision.